Performance-Based Pedagogy Assessment of
Teacher Candidates
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Old Capitol Building
P.O. Box 47200
Olympia, WA 98504-7200
Please refer to the document number below for quicker service:
04-0040
This document is available online at:
http://www.k12.wa.us/certification/profed/pedagogy.aspx
This material is available in alternative format upon request.
Contact the Resource Center at (888) 595-3276, TTY (360) 664-3631.
Performance-Based
Pedagogy Assessment
of Teacher Candidates
Prepared by
Dr. Andrew Griffin, Assistant Superintendent
Dr. Arlene Hett, Director of Professional Education and Certification
Higher Education, Certification and Community Outreach
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Dr. Terry Bergeson
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Dr. Mary Alice Heuschel
Deputy Superintendent, Learning and Teaching
A project of the Washington Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
in collaboration with the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction
July 2004
State of Washington
Performance-Based Pedagogy Assessment of Teacher Candidates
Table of Contents
Part I: Conceptual Framework 1
Part II: Directions 17
Part III: Scoring Rubric 29
Part IV: Glossary 44
A project of the Washington Association of Colleges for Teacher Education in collaboration with the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction
State of Washington
Performance-Based Pedagogy Assessment of Teacher Candidates
Part I: Conceptual Framework
The primary audience for the State of Washington “Performance-Based Pedagogy Assessment of Teacher Candidates” includes teacher candidates, teacher education faculty, and higher education faculty supervisors and P-12 cooperating teachers of student teaching internships. Another audience with a close interest in this document includes P-12 administrators, policy makers with statewide responsibility for public education, and nongovernmental organizations that deliberate on issues pertaining to teacher quality.
The Washington Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (WACTE) and the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) collaborated in the design of the “Performance-Based Pedagogy Assessment of Teacher Candidates.” The instrument is based on the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) effective teaching requirements for teacher preparation program approval by the State of Washington Board of Education, on contemporary research related to teaching and learning, on the work of the Multi-Ethnic Think Tank (2001), and the federal law “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.” Throughout the design process of the “Performance-Based Pedagogy Assessment of Teacher Candidates,” representatives of statewide professional education associations provided input to and support for the creation of an authentic assessment tool of teacher candidates in real classrooms over a sustained period of time.
The assessment instrument incorporates expectations that are in response to state and national concern over an academic “achievement gap” based on race, socio-economic class, level of English-language learning, and gender. The academic achievement gap is generally evidenced (i.e., not exclusively) between (a) white economically advantaged students and (b) students of color, immigrant children, and students from lower socio-economic families. Federal legislation decries this achievement gap and calls for strategies “to close the achievement gap” with accountability, flexibility and choice so that “no child is left behind” (federal guidelines for Public Law 107-110). OSPI further elaborates on this need in Addressing the Achievement Gap: A Challenge for State of Washington Educators (Shannon & Bylsma, 2002).
A paradigm shift in Washington and across the United States is necessary for creating an inclusive approach to P-12 public education that is determined to leave no child academically behind. Thus, this change is characterized in teaching and learning from being centered on just teacher actions to a focus on student learning. The pedagogy assessment reflects this shift by evaluating teacher performance on the basis of student outcomes and engagement in learning. At the preservice teacher education level, the 21 colleges approved to offer teacher education have recognized the need for a paradigm shift through the collaborative efforts of WACTE and OSPI to create a meaningful performance-based assessment of teacher candidates for use in full-time student teaching internships in P-12 classrooms. The pedagogy assessment emphasizes what P-12 students are actually doing and learning in classrooms. This focus reflects the paradigm shift articulated in the WAC (180-78A-270) that requires teacher education programs “to prepare educators who demonstrate a positive impact on student learning.” Preservice teacher education, however, cannot accomplish this task alone. WACTE and OSPI recognize that to effectively close the achievement gap, a broad-based collaboration that shares responsibility—one that includes public school teachers, administrators, school boards, legislators, families, communities, and tribal councils—is necessary for the systemic success of this project (also see Kober, 2001).
This project is nationally unique in that a state educational agency collaboratively created with higher education an assessment instrument with the dual goal (a) to educate qualified P-12 school teachers and (b) to eliminate an achievement gap that leaves no child behind. To set our state target lower than this risks the perpetuation of inequities in achievement.
Taken together, Part II, “Directions” and Part III, “Observation Scoring Rubric,” can have a positive impact on student learning through effective instructional planning and teaching. The performance-based expectations contained in this document hold the potential to accelerate student learning in all subject matter content areas while concurrently closing the academic achievement gap. This document represents authentic assessment of teacher candidate performance in P-12 school settings, especially as it impacts student learning.
Throughout this document the expectations are for all students to be engaged in meaningful learning that is based on the state’s Essential Academic Learning Requirements (EALRs). The pedagogy assessment requires future teachers to plan instructional lessons informed by research and best practices that directly relate to effective teaching for increased student learning and achievement. Given our culturally diverse society and schools, it is essential that all students be afforded the opportunity to learn meaningful academic content and that individuals beginning a teaching career have foundational knowledge, skills, and dispositions to that end. Conventional research on effective teaching in this document is placed within a broader research base indicative of a paradigm shift in teaching and learning. Educational policy research recognizes that:
The promise of standards-based reform will not be fulfilled unless we close the achievement gap. Equal opportunity and educational excellence are sometimes cast as competing priorities, but to close the gap we must approach them as complementary parts of a unified approach to reform. The rewards will be long-term economic and social benefits for the entire nation. (emphasis added) (Kober, 2001, p. 29)
Hence, this pedagogy assessment document assumes that excellence in education is inseparable from equal and equitable opportunities for all students to learn meaningful subject matter content as expressed through the EALRs.
The state’s educational reform in the early 1990s mirrored similar reform initiatives in other states where the purpose was to make classroom assessment “more fundamentally a part of the learning process” (Shepard, 2000, p. 6). The intention remains to create a “learning culture” in every classroom that connects a “reformed vision of curriculum” with both “cognitive and constructivist learning theories” and “classroom assessment” (p. 5). The following section on authentic assessment helps frame this continuing paradigm shift that is demanded by both the state’s Education Reform Act of 1993 (see OSPI n.d.a) and the “Performance-Based Pedagogy Assessment of Teacher Candidates.”
Authentic Assessment of Teacher Candidate Performance and Student Learning
Authentic assessment of (a) teacher candidate planning and performance and (b) student learning is foundational to the “Performance-Based Pedagogy Assessment of Teacher Candidates.” Authentic assessment is an overarching concept that refers to the measurement of “intellectual accomplishments that are worthwhile, significant, and meaningful” (Wehlage, Newmann, & Secada, 1996, p. 23). When applying authentic assessment to student learning and achievement, a teacher candidate must attend to criteria related to “construction of knowledge, disciplined inquiry, and the value of achievement beyond the school” (p. 24; also see Glossary). The centrality of authentic assessment in the pedagogy assessment reflects a recommendation from educational policy research that places “high priority on strategies that research has already shown to increase student learning” (Kober, 2001).
The concept of authentic assessment is congruent with the state of Washington Basic Education Goals which are also referred to as Student Learning Goals (OSPI, n.d.b, n.d.c). The Basic Education Goals permeate all areas of the school curriculum and contain expectations for students to be able to intellectually “read with comprehension, write with skill, and communicate effectively and responsibly in a variety of ways and settings” (OSPI, n.d.b). Authentic assessment by a teacher candidate must be applied to subject matter content in order that students can “think analytically, logically, and creatively, and to integrate experience and knowledge to form reasoned judgments and solve problems” (OSPI, n.d.b). The Basic Education Goals are clear that intellectual development of students also needs to be extended to potential life opportunities and experiences that exist in careers and post-secondary education. Underlying infusion of the Basic Education Goals throughout the curriculum is an expectation that parents and community members will be involved with school districts in helping students meet these goals. This is one reason why a teacher candidate is expected to communicate with families to support student learning.
The pedagogy assessment’s authentic assessment expectations for a teacher candidate are related directly to the EALRs. The EALRs are specific learning targets that are “based on the student learning goals” (OSPI, n.d.c). The EALRs represent “the specific academic skills and knowledge students will be required to meet in the classroom” (OSPI, n.d.c). Authentic assessment of student learning requires that a teacher candidate’s instructional planning include pedagogical approaches designed to engage students intellectually with subject matter content. Research indicates that teachers who use pedagogical approaches that focus on authentic assessment of student learning can improve “academic performance at all grade levels” (Marks, Newmann, & Gamoran, 1996, p. 69). Furthermore, pedagogy directly connected to authentic assessment “can be distributed equitably to students from all social backgrounds with reasonably equitable benefits” (p. 70).
An overview of key concepts and terms that are foundational to the Part II, “Directions,” and Part III, “Observation Scoring Rubric,” are presented in the following sections. Each approach is essential for a teacher candidate to promote and increase the learning of all students. These interrelated concepts include the necessity of (a) effective teaching, (b) the establishment of clear learning targets and assessment approaches, (c) the engagement of low status/historically marginalized students, (d) a multicultural perspective, (e) the incorporation of transformative academic knowledge into the curriculum, (f) culturally responsive teaching, (g) the provision of classroom management approaches for inclusive and supportive learning communities, and (h) caring and democratic classrooms.
Effective Teaching
Pedagogy, in its contemporary usage, is a perspective that envisions effective teaching “as a process, not a technique” (Hamilton & McWilliam, 2001, p. 18). Pedagogy situates effective teaching more as “two-way communication than a mode of one-way transmission or delivery” of information to students (p. 18). A teacher candidate, then, practices approaches to teaching and learning that build relationships with and among students and “prioritizes the constitution of learning over the execution of teaching” (p. 18). This is congruent with research that finds achievement is improved through active student participation in the learning process (Gallego et al., 2001). Hence, it is imperative that a teacher candidate create instructional conditions where students are actively engaged in learning. National standards “clearly favor teachers who emphasize advanced content, deep understanding, reasoning, and applications over a strong focus on just basic skills and facts…[and] leans more toward constructivist teaching than toward direct instruction” (Porter, Young, & Odden, 2001, p. 292). In essence, then, an evaluator of a teacher candidate is focused on the effects of teaching on students that result in active learning of subject matter content (see Floden, 2001).
Effective teaching encourages student interaction within an academically rigorous curriculum. Based on cognitive research, Resnick and the Institute for Learning note, “For classroom talk to promote learning it must be accountable—to the learning community, to accurate and appropriate knowledge, and to rigorous thinking” (Institute for Learning, 2001). This requires a learning environment that promotes student application of their intelligence. Additionally, research on effective teaching also supports a learning environment that:
Provides clear learning expectations.
Uses fair and credible assessments of student learning.
Models and analyzes complex thinking.
Recognizes authentic accomplishment by every student.
Teaches students to self-monitor their learning (Institute for Learning, 2001; Ready, Edley, & Snow, 2002).
Effective teaching is congruent with what is often referred to as “best practices.” Daniels and Bizar (1998), for example, describe “six basic structures that help to create Best Practice classrooms…[and] inherently give students a real voice and meaningful choices” in their learning community (pp. 5, 8). These teaching and learning structures include integrative units, small group activities, representing-to-learn, classroom workshop, authentic experience, and reflective assessment. As examples of effective teaching strategies, the following are descriptions of these six structures:
Integrative units are evident in instructional plans and teaching when a teacher candidate crosses “subject boundaries, translating models from one field into another, importing ideas from other subjects, designing cross-curricular investigations, and developing rich thematic units that involve students in long-term, deep, sophisticated inquiry” (pp. 20-21).
Small group activities exist in “classrooms with effective sub-groups [that] are usually well structured places where students follow carefully developed norms and routines, and where working together is not a disruptive departure but rather business as usual” (p. 63). This best practice is generally referred to as cooperative learning. Within such activities student collaboration with one another “is the mainstay of these classrooms” (p. 59).
Representing-to-learn refers to learning activities that provide students an opportunity to both construct meaning of content being learned and share this learning with others. A teacher candidate can help students understand new material by selecting “examples and metaphors that illuminate new ideas and skills, connecting new content to students’ knowledge, interests, and a school’s culture” (Danielson, 1996).